F35

>>35060871
>Remind me why are we spending $300 million on a flying brick with 10 xbox's strapped to it

Where do you even get a $300 million figure from? The flyaway cost of an F-35A is under $100 million, total program development costs are around $100 billion, development and acquisition is around $460 billion, and total lifetime operating costs over fifty years comes close to $1 trillion in recent estimates. The F-35B and F-35C are... $50 and $80 million more expensive than F-35As respectively.

Because it's a better use of money than you getting a free degree in women's studies or whatever other useless garbage you'll say we could be spending the money on instead.

>>35060970
We could build a better plane instead with 11 xbox's strapped to it.

>>35060894
>F-35C
>bigger folding wing and heavier landing gear doubles the cost of the plane.

Kelly Johnson would be ashamed.

File: f-35-commonality-image1.jpg (160KB, 1203x735px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1203x735px

>>35062293

>>35062314
literally fucked up putting a bigger wing and stronger landing gear on the plane so much they ended up redesigning half the plane.

Kelly Johnson would be twice as ashamed.

Lockheed Martin truly has fallen from it's prime.

>>35062314
>literally double the cost for a larger wing box and control surfaces

How does that disprove anything he said?

>>35062347
It doesn't. Commonality of parts on the airframe is a bit of a myth.

>>35062359
So why in the fuck, did we buy three different planes that look similar?

The entire fucking point was commonality and thus reduced cost.

>>35062371
>So why in the fuck, did we buy three different planes that look similar?

You think the Congress would have backed the program if the designers had done the intelligent thing and devoted resources into creating dissimilar air-frames that were optimized for their specific missions?

>>35062371
your entire statement answers itself my friend.

>>35062452
If the commonality didn't actually net reduced cost, then what the fuck was the point?

>>35062448
Probably, considering how much money gets thrown at military aviation bullshit, I have no problem believing congress wouldn't have funded three separate programs.

Really the F-35B is a complete waste of time and money. Just give the marines more attack helicopters for their babby carriers and let them rely on Naval fixed wing for their heavy bomb CAS.

A Marine Corps airforce outside of some transportation/logistics choppers and some attack choppers for CAS is a complete waste of money.
>b-but what if they're too far inland for the choppers
Then they shouldnt fucking be there, leave the Army to inland operations and leave the Marines to beachhead, amphibious, and feet wet/dry operations. No point and a waste of money equipping the Marines to try and have the same capabilities as part Navy, part Army, and par Air Force.

>>35062522
The Marine Corps has no purpose but to project power for the United States. If it doesn't have the means to avoid detection, it has no capacity to project power and no reason to exist. The F-35B justifies the continuation of the Marine Corps. It was, politically, 100% necessary.

>>35062604
>marines need to justify their existence with a stupid "me too" aircraft

Jesus Christ.

>>35062522
>I know literally nothing about any of the Uniformed services of the United States: The post

>>35062660
>I resort to baseless ad hominem instead of debating points because I lack the metal faculties to do so: The Post.

>>35062660
k.

>>35060871
remind me why I even bother typing a reply to this retarded post

>>35060871
THEY SHOULD HAVE SPENT THE MONEY ON ANTI BALLISTIC MISSLE TECH INSTEAD GODDAMNIT

File: 1438586718756.jpg (59KB, 1200x757px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1200x757px

>>35062673
>because I lack the metal faculties
This gave me a chuckle.

>>35062522
>If the commonality didn't actually net reduced cost

It did reduce costs.

>>35060894
>under $100 million
Not quite yet, it will reach that point somewhere between 2018 and 2020 as new planes roll off the lines.

>>35063766
>It did reduce costs.

>citation needed

File: 1414631697733.jpg (194KB, 700x466px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 700x466px

>>35062359
But the most costly parts of the aircraft are the engine and the avionics which remain common among the aircraft.

>>35064166
So them, why does a different wing box and control surfaces double to price of the plane?

>>35064166
>But the most costly parts of the aircraft are the engine and the avionics which remain common among the aircraft.

Which is why the commonality of airframe parts was so misguided.

>>35064196
It doesn't.

>>35063904
You claimed it didn't reduce costs, the onus is on you to prove yourself correct.

>>35060871
As of LRIP 10:
$94.6m for the F-35A
$122.8m for the F-35B
$121.8m for the F-35C
Those are flyaway costs, include the engine.

LRIP 11 which has partly been signed for already should see flyaway costs decrease around another 5%. By 2020 they anticipate <$80m (including inflation) for an F-35A - I can't remember what the estimates were for the other 2 variants, but I'm pretty sure they're meant to be around $100m by that point as well.

>>35062371
>>35062359
Commonality in terms of number of parts of the airframe *structure* isn't very high (only like 30%), but the avionics and engines are essentially common, plus about half of all the airframe structural components are still similar enough that they can be cut from the same billets, share the same jigs, etc.

So while they've mostly failed to achieve the dream of a USMC F-35B squadron being able to borrow parts from a USN F-35C or USAF F-35A squadron, etc, they do still save considerable money by not having to do separate R&D on most of the jet, and by not having to build separate factories to produce the jets, or separate depots to maintain different variants, etc; they also achieve economy of scale by being able to bulk order things like actuators that then just have different sized pushrods attached, or aluminium / titanium billets from which they just use the same CNC machines but with slightly different CAD files, etc.

>>35060871
Because the gays